Civil War

In the autumn of 1775, before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin was sent copies of the Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel. These editions were forwarded by Charles Dumas, who was widely considered an authority on international law and whom Franklin previously met on his trip to Europe.[1] His custom editions of Vattel had notes added for the Continental Congress to thoroughly inspect. That December, Franklin wrote Dumas in response:

“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

Suffice it to say, the Law of Nations is an important and integral part of the founding of America, therefore, it is proper and on-point that we start our inspection of the passport with Vattel, the “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,” written in 1758. In Book III, entitled “Of War,” it states the following in Chapter 17, “Of Safe-conducts and Passports: with Questions on the Ransom of Prisoners of War:“

§ 265. Nature of safe-conducts and passports.

SAFE-CONDUCTS and passports are a kind of privilege insuring safety to persons in passing and repassing, or to certain things during their conveyance from one place to another. From the usage and genius of the (French) language, it appears that the term “passport” is used, on ordinary occasions, when speaking of persons who lie under no particular exception as to passing and repassing in safety, and to whom it is only granted for greater security, and in order to prevent all debate, or to exempt them from some general prohibition. A safe-conduct is given to those who otherwise could not safely pass through the places where he who grants it is master, — as, for instance, to a person charged with some misdemeanor, or to an enemy. It is of the latter that we are here to treat.”

Almost 4 decades after the adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America, James Kent, a former Justice of the New York Supreme Court and Chancellor of New York, wrote what has been highly regarded in America as an authoritative piece on early American jurisprudence. “Kent’s Commentaries on American Law,” Lecture 8, “Of Truces, passports, and Treaties of Peace,” the opening paragraph states:

“HAVING considered the rights and duties appertaining to a state of war, I proceed to examine the law of nations relative to negotiations, conventions, and treaties, which either interrupt the war, or terminate peace.”

Section 2 of Lecture 8 goes on as follows:

“A passport, or safe conduct, is a privilege granted in war, and exempting the party from the effects of its operation, during the time, and to the extent prescribed in the permission. It flows from the sovereign authority; but the power of granting a passport may be delegated by the sovereign to persons in subordinate command, and they are invested with that power either by an express commission, or by the nature of their trust. The general of an army, from the very nature of his power, can grant safe conducts; but the permission is riot transferable by the person named in the passport, for it maybe that the government had special reasons for granting the privilege to the very individual named, and it is to be presumed to be personal.”

As we can see from Vattel and Kent, both frequently quoted authorities used by SCOTUS, a “passport” is the privilege of safe conduct during wartime. The following is a basic history of the U.S. Passport from Wikipedia that affirms Vattel and Kent:

“American consular officials issued passports to some citizens of some of the thirteen states during the War for Independence (1775–1783). Passports were sheets of paper printed on one side, included a description of the bearer, and were valid for three to six months. The minister to France, Benjamin Franklin, based the design of passports issued by his mission on that of the French passport.

“From 1776 to 1783, no state government had a passport requirement. The Articles of Confederation government (1783–1789) did not have a passport requirement.

“The Department of Foreign Affairs of the war period also issued passports, and the department, carried over by the Articles of Confederation government (1783–1789), continued to issue passports. In July 1789, the Department of Foreign Affairs was carried over by the government established under the Constitution. In September of that year, the name of the department was changed to Department of State. The department handled foreign relations and issued passports, and, until the mid-19th century had various domestic duties.

“For decades thereafter, passports were issued not only by the Department of State but also by states and cities, and by notaries public. For example, an internal passport dated 1815 was presented to Massachusetts citizen George Barker to allow him to travel as a free black man to visit relatives in Southern slave states. Passports issued by American authorities other than the Department of State breached propriety and caused confusion abroad. Some European countries refused to recognize passports not issued by the Department of State, unless United States consular officials endorsed them. The problems led the Congress in 1856 to give to the Department of State the sole authority to issue passports.

“From 1789 through late 1941, **THE CONSTITUTIONALLY ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT,** required passports of citizens only during two periods: during the American Civil War (1861–1865), as well as during and shortly after World War I (1914–1918). The passport requirement of the Civil War era lacked statutory authority. During World War I (1914–1918), European countries instituted passport requirements. The Travel Control Act of May 22, 1918, permitted the president, when the United States was at war, to proclaim a passport requirement, and President Wilson issued such a proclamation on August 18, 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, but the passport requirement lingered until March 3, 1921, the last day of the Wilson administration.

“In Europe, general peace between the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) and the beginning of World War I (1914), and development of rail roads, gave rise to international travel by large numbers of people. Countries such as Czarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire maintained passport requirements. After World War I, many European countries retained their passport requirements. Foreign passport requirements undercut the absence of a passport requirement for Americans, under United States law, between 1921 and 1941.

“There was an absence of a passport requirement under United States law between 1921 and 1941. World War II (1939–1945) again led to passport requirements under the Travel Control Act of 1918.

“The contemporary period of required passports for Americans under United States law began on November 29, 1941. A 1978 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 made it unlawful to enter or depart the United States without an issued passport even in peacetime.”

The following documents shall have the same force and effect as proof of United States citizenship as certificates of naturalization or of citizenship issued by the Attorney General or by a court having naturalization jurisdiction:

(1) A passport, during its period of validity (if such period is the maximum period authorized by law), issued by the Secretary of State to a citizen of the United States.

CAVEAT EMPTOR! The patriot gurus from the likes of Family Guardian and SEDM are not telling you the whole truth and falsifying information on a U.S. passport can result in fines or jail time!

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1542 – Flase statement in application and use of passport

Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or

Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.

The “national of the United States,” “non-citizen national” and “citizen of the United States” all mean the same thing, they owe paramount allegiance to the United States. This is a construct of the >NEW< 14th Amendment political system, which flipped original allegiance on it’s head[2] and made the the states subordinate to the federal authority.[3] This undefined power, that exists under the authority of Congress,[4] is in direct opposition to the power structure that was founded. “Original allegiance,” as I refer to the founding structure, is explained as follows:

“[A]llegiance imports an obligation on the citizen or subject, the correlative right to which resides in the sovereign power: allegiance in this country is NOT DUE TO CONGRESS, but to the people with whom the sovereign power is found; it is therefore, by the people only that any alteration can be made of the existing institutions with respect to allegiance. […] Allegiance is fitted to sovereignty, and, whenever we discover sovereignty, we affirm that a correspondent allegiance must exist somewhere. The States of this Union are sovereign, and a celebrated writer of this country has justly said that every citizen sustains a two-fold political capacity first, with respect to the State; secondly, with respect to the United States.” ~31 Annals of Congress, pg. 1045 (1818) [EMPHASIS ADDED]

CONCLUSION:

Original formula for allegiance in these United States of America:People(state) > state govt > federal govt

Post-Reconstruction formula for allegiance in the United States.Federal govt > STATE OF ________ > 14th Amendment citizen subject

The claim that one can get a passport as an “American national” who is not subject to the 14th Amendment is quite frankly absurd. The act of getting permission from the federal government to travel is not going to alter one’s political status. Allegiance fundamentally does not work that way. In order to apply for the privilege of a passport, one has to give the United States paramount allegiance. Since 1860s — specifically 1868 — paramount allegiance had been shifted from state to federal, as declared by section 1, and given authority by section 5, of the dubiously-“ratified” 14th Amendment.[5] Those two sections combined read:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside [and] the CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” [EMPHASIS ADDED]

A presumption of law was created regarding citizenship[6] and Congress declared authority over persons (which was intended to safeguard the rights of the newly freed slaves) subject to its jurisdiction, OUTSIDE of the hard letter of the various constitutions in the Union. Some claim their physical birth in a state of the Union (not in D.C.) trumps the presumption of federal nationality, but that assumption is sorely mistaken when you apply the Law of Nations in regard to birth and naturalization concepts like jus soli(birthright of soil) and jus sanguinis(birthright of blood). Both modes are employed by the United States to tighten its matrix over the people.

REMEDY:

There is only one way to rebut the presumption of citizenship (allegiance), and that is by formal expatriation of the 14th Amendment by repatriation to a single Union republic, guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

“Expatriating a U.S. citizen SUBJECT to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that, after reaching the age of 18, the person has obtained foreign citizenship or DECLARED ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN STATE[7] generally will not be possible absent substantial evidence, apart from the act itself, that the individual specifically intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. An express state- ment of renunciation of U.S. citizenship would suffice.” [EMPHASIS ADDED]

—> In the follow-up article, we will tackle the elements of expatriation in regard to the 14th Amendment and discuss repatriation to a Union republic as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the FedCon.

[2] –“The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-Rights, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality [allegiance] upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain.” ~James G. Blaine, Twenty Years In Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield, pg. 30 [emphasis added]

“And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some- one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship-” ~James G. Blaine, Political Discussions, Legislative, Diplomatic and Popular, 1856-1886, pg. 64

“Its opening section settled all conflicts and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration which defined national citizenship, and gave to it precedence of the citizenship of a State. ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, and of the States wherein they reside.’ These pregnant words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citizenship. Instead of a man being a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of one of the States, he was now made a citizen of any State in which he might choose to reside because he was antecedently a citizen of the United States.” ~James G. Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield, Vol. II, pp. 312, 313.

[3] –“We are thus enabled to see what was the Congressional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same force in the Republican Party which secured the adoption of the Amendment has also given us its ideal of the purpose and scope of that constitutional measure by the laws thereunder enacted. They meant to change the form of the American Commonwealth. The States were to exist only in name. Their legislatures and their courts were to be reduced to impotency. The citizens of the States were now to live directly under the surveillance of the Federal Government, looking to it for protection in his private affairs and fearing its avenging power should he transgress the least of its commandments.

“Into the hands of Congress was placed the sovereign power of the Nation. No longer was the National Government to be one of delegated powers, and no part of the sovereign power was to be held any longer by the States. Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended ultimately to create out of the former Union one centralized consolidated government with the supreme power vested in the Federal authorities in Washington. Such was the ideal of the Radicals.” ~Charles Wallace Collins, “The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,” pg. 20 (1912)

[4] –“Although this race situation may be said to have been the immediate or proximate cause of the adoption of the Amendment, as well as its immediate field of operation, in the mind of the Radicals it had a much wider scope. To them it meant the ultimate centralization of power into the hands of the Federal Government. It meant the death knell of the doctrine of States’ Rights—the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of state control over private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred.” ~Charles Wallace Collins, “The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,” pg. 45 (1912)

[5] –“Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th Amendment is a sham– serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.” ~John Rarick, Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pg. 15641

[6] –“Someone having been born in the US is presumed to continue to be a US citizen in the absence of proper legal evidence to the contrary. — Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 US 325; Ex parte Lopez (S.D. Tex 1934) 6 F.Supp 342.

“Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.” ~Affroiyum v Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 262 (1967)

[7] –“Foreign states. Nations which are outside the United States. TERM MAY ALSO REFER TO ANOTHER STATE; i.e. a sister state.” ~Black’ Law 6th Edition [EMPHASIS ADDED]

“Private international law assumes a more important aspect in the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the several states, although united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws for all national purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are otherwise, at least so far as private international law is concerned, in the same relation as FOREIGN COUNTRIES. The great majority of questions of private international law are therefore subject to the same rules when they arise between two states of the Union as when they arise between two foreign countries, and in the ensuing pages the words “state,” “nation,” and “country” are used synonymously and interchangeably, there being no intention to distinguish between the several states of the Union and foreign countries by the use of varying terminology.” 16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2

** I found it it very interesting the author of the piece in Wikipedia decided to use this interesting language:

“From 1789 through late 1941, THE CONSTITUTIONALLY ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT, required passports of citizens only during two periods: during the American Civil War (1861–1865), as well as during and shortly after World War I (1914–1918).”

Was there another government established under the 14th Amendment?

“Formerly, the structure of the federal constitutional government was so distinct from that of the States, that each might usefully be examined and discussed apart from the other; but the points of contact and dependence have been so largely increased by the recent amendments to the federal Constitution that a different course is now deemed advisable.” ~Thomas M. Cooley, University of Michigan, “The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America” (1880)

“By imposing explicit limits on the powers of the States and granting Congress the power to enforce them, the [14th] Amendment “fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.” Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 59. When Congress enacts appropriate legislation to enforce this Amendment, see City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), federal interests are paramount, and Congress may assert an authority over the States which would be otherwise unauthorized by the Constitution. Fitzpatrick, supra, at 456.” –Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) [emphasis added]

For those of us who study unbiased history, meaning BOTH sides of history, movies such as the Star Wars franchise are a bold representation of the American experience. If you pay close enough attention, you can see the truth of our history not-so-hidden in the storyline.

Scott Horton of Antiwars.com, wrote in his article entitled, “Star Wars and the American Empire,” the following in 2005:

“Because antiwar factions in the Senate refuse to allow the creation of a standing army unless they are attacked, Darth Sidious arranges events so that the separatists are seen as the aggressors, and manipulates the dumbest character of the new movies, Jar Jar Binks, into proposing to the Senate that he be granted emergency powers over the galaxy. He then announces the creation of a “Grand Army of the Republic” to “counter the increasing threats of the separatists.” The Jedi then lead the massive clone army into battle across the galaxy to “save” the Republic. These clones, of course, become the Imperial Stormtroopers of the later chapters.

“The name “Grand Army of the Republic” is a direct reference to the Union Army during America’s war over secession. For many, that war marked a major shift in their conception of the country – from one in which a limited central government presided over a union of ultimately sovereign states toward one in which a strong central government exercised ultimate authority over these now weakened and dependent states. Though Lincoln didn’t control the leadership of the Confederacy, goading them into firing the first shots at Fort Sumter certainly provided the same sort of pretext for his dirty work.”

“The Empire’s origins are depicted in the prequel Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005), where it replaces the Galactic Republic in the midst of a galactic civil war orchestrated by Palpatine, then the Republic’s Supreme Chancellor. Palpatine is also secretly the Sith Lord Darth Sidious who intends to purge the Jedi and restore the Sith to power in the galaxy. Palpatine’s Sith identity is only known by a small few throughout his life. Palpatine claims that the Jedi attempted to assassinate him and overthrow the Galactic Senate and declares the Jedi to have committed treason. Palpatine declares that the civil war with the separatists in combination with the Jedi coup d’état require the reorganization of the Republic into a state that can provide stability, and a safe and secure society, a Galactic Empire with himself as Emperor. The Senate that he has manipulated overwhelmingly applauds Palpatine’s decision.

“The Galactic Republic is the name of the interplanetary State used in the fictional Star Wars universe prior to the establishment of the Galactic Empire. The form of this government, ruled by the Senate, was introduced in the Prequel Trilogy. By the time of the original Star Wars trilogy, it is referred to as the Old Republic. It was a democratic, though eventually ineffectual, constitutional republic tied up in layers of bureaucracy.

“The Republic, as it was commonly known, was a republican government that was able to sustain itself for over twenty-five thousand years.”

[…]

“By the time of The Phantom Menace, the Republic had grown unbearably corrupt. Palpatine became the Chancellor in 32 BBY after his predecessor, Finis Valorum, was voted out in a no confidence vote in a wave of protest against his handling of the conflict with the Trade Federation. Traditionally, the Chancellor could only serve a limited amount of time; however, Palpatine stayed in office much longer, due to the prolonged Separatist Crisis as well as the threat posed by the “Jedi Rebellion.”

“The crisis occurred when several of the Republic’s member Star Systems and organizations united in order to separate from the Republic. This unified organization became known as the Confederacy of Independent Systems, or CIS for short. Tensions between the Republic and the Separatists eventually escalated into all-out war, and the conflicts that would later be known as the “Clone Wars” began (chronicled in Attack of the Clones).”

In 1912, Charles Wallace Collins wrote a book called “The 14th Amendment and the States.” It is a legislative history of the aforementioned amendment up until that point in our history. It was a dire warning of what was to come, written over 100 years ago. Interestingly enough, Collins’ book has been quoted by SCOTUS, which gives it recognition as an authoritative work. Collins concludes:

“We are thus enabled to see what was the Congressional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same force in the Republican Party which secured the adoption of the Amendment has also given us its ideal of the purpose and scope of that constitutional measure by the laws thereunder enacted. They meant to change the form of the American Commonwealth. The States were to exist only in name. Their legislatures and their courts were to be reduced to impotency. The citizens of the States were now to live directly under the surveillance of the Federal Government, looking to it for protection in his private affairs and fearing its avenging power should he transgress the least of its commandments.

“Into the hands of Congress was placed the sovereign power of the Nation. No longer was the National Government to be one of delegated powers, and no part of the sovereign power was to be held any longer by the States. Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended ultimately to create out of the former Union one centralized consolidated government with the supreme power vested in the Federal authorities in Washington. Such was the ideal of the Radicals.” ~Charles Wallace Collins, “The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,” pg. 20 (1912)

Collins goes on to state:

“Although this race situation may be said to have been the immediate or proximate cause of the adoption of the Amendment, as well as its immediate field of operation, in the mind of the Radicals it had a much wider scope. To them it meant the ultimate centralization of power into the hands of the Federal Government. It meant the death knell of the doctrine of States’ Rights—the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of state control over private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred.” ~Charles Wallace Collins, “The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,” pg. 45 (1912)

As you can read from the following quotes, the parallels are quite obvious. Astounding really. But there have been several instances of movies that reveal truth to unsuspecting viewers, it seems to be something found in many major motion pictures. A few examples include The Matrix, Braveheart, and more recently, The Hunger Games. It is too bad most people do not see what is being dangled right before their eyes; truth disguised as entertainment.

SO, WHO REPRESENTS THE GALACTIC EMPIRE?

Understand when you vote and participate (give allegiance) in the 14th Amendment system, you are supporting the Galactic Empire. Literally.

Those of us who oppose the American empire, and wish for a return to our organic structure, a federal republic of republics, parallel the Jedi and their allies.

ARE WE THE MASTERS OF GOVERNMENT, OR IS THE GOVERNMENT THE MASTER OF US?

~An Exposé on Modern American Free-Range Slavery~

A universally recognized maxim of law states:

“The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”

The maxim above is what is a called a self-evident truth. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) defines a “maxim” as:

“An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.”

What I am about to show you in this eye-opening article, is how the American people got hoodwinked by their government to enslave themselves. (1) Sadly very few Americans know the truth about what you are about to read.

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” ~James Madison

It is time that the American people arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives…

ULTIMATE POWER IS DERIVED FROM THE PEOPLE

In the United States of America, the government was founded upon the principle that the people, in their collective capacity, are the sovereign (supreme) authority in their state. This was to be the grand experiment of a modern republican government. In Black’s Law 6th Edition, the phase “sovereign people” is defined as:

“The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their collective capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.”

Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution for the United States proclaims:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government…”

A “republican government” is defined in Black’s 6th as:

“One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.”

Is there little doubt the people are the sovereign in America? You maybe asking yourself what this has to do with the 14th Amendment. This author’s reply is, EVERYTHING. The 14th Amendment fundamentally altered the nature of citizenship in America, as you will soon see. But first, let’s take a look at the 13th Article in Amendment.

THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

The 13th Amendment states as follows:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Note that the 13th Amendment sounds like it solved the problem of slavery by outlawing “slavery” and “involuntary servitude.” But the reality is IT DID NOT OUTLAW VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. No law can outlaw voluntary servitude, it is the sovereign right of the person to decide their freedom, not the government. The duel edge of freedom is very simple to understand: freedom, thought of and universally accepted as a natural right, can be surrendered voluntarily. That IS real freedom, the freedom to decide for yourself to be free or not. But, unfortunately, in America’s case, voluntary servitude was created by word magic, forced upon us at the point of bayonet, done so deceitfully via legislated tyranny, with the swift stroke of a pen. Voluntary free-range slavery by deceit.

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The 14th Amendment, which was dubiously “ratified” under extreme military duress and political maneuvering, (2) is precisely what created the modern American free-range slavery that is painfully obvious today. Under the guise of giving the former slave class civil status as citizens, the Radical Republicans enslaved everyone by legislative fiat. (3) James G. Blaine, one such outspoken Radical Republican, wrote a detailed account of the Radical’s motives in a couple of books he authored in the decades following Reconstruction. (4)

The relevant part of section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

“[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Notice that the obvious singular, “the jurisdiction,” is distinct from “their jurisdiction” in the 13th Amendment. (5) This is very important to understand because each jurisdiction is distinct as paramount allegiance was owed to the state and NOT to the federal government. (6) But what is even more important (in this particular article) is the word “subject.” The term “subject” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition follows:

“Subject. Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. […] Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” (7)

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

The 14th Amendment is patently unconstitutional,(2) and no power exists in the Congress to legislate a revision to the sovereign body that created it. (8) If that is not very obvious, please reread the maxim of law provided at the beginning of this article. Congress simply is incompetent to revise the very document that created it, UNLESS it is accomplished by a convention of the people in their sovereign capacity as the the several and distinct nations that compromise the federal “republic of republics.” (9) This is the whole point of the article. Are the people master of the government, or is the government the master of the people?

IN CONCLUSION

Congress appointed themselves our masters by no rightful authority found in the Constitution, or by the people. PERIOD. End of story. There is no argument that can be made, in fact or in law, that gives Congress this extraordinary power. As this article has clearly established, that legislative body, whose sole purpose is to serve the people who created it, is wholly without any authority to change ITS masters, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATE REPUBLICS.

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” (to) “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Does the condensed “remix” of the 14th Amendment above show the more sinister side of this self-appointed power? With the stroke of a pen, Congress created a new federal citizenship (10) that exists outside the hard letter of the Constitution, whose admitted intent was to destroy the 9th and 10th Amendments (11) as Blaine clearly admits in his writings, thus committing treason against the people and the states they were sworn to protect. But, only by our own ignorant participation in the current de facto government, (12) do we give it power by the “consent of the governed.” (13) If the American people are to preserve the little freedom they currently possess, then the 14th Amendment absolutely must declared null and void ab initio. It is we who are the masters of the government, and it is about time we the people start acting like it.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of the AMERICAN TROJAN HORSE: The Rise of Corporate Personhood

Jared Dalen – Nevada national

——FOOTNOTES—–

(1) – “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe… Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.” ~Daniel Webster

“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.” ~Dresden James

(2) – Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646

“When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867, making the 10th state to have rejected the same, or more than one-fourth of the total number of 36 states of the Union as of that date, this leaving less than three-fourths of the states possibly to ratify the same, the Amendment failed of ratification in fact, and in law, and it could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution Of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional Requirement.” ~Louisiana Judge L.H. Perez [quotes from his treatise on the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment], Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pg. 15643http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/14amrec.pdf

(3) – “Although this race situation may be said to have been the immediate or proximate cause of the adoption of the Amendment, as well as its immediate field of operation, in the mind of the Radicals it had a much wider scope. To them it meant the ultimate centralization of power into the hands of the Federal Government. It meant the death knell of the doctrine of States’ Rights—the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of state control over private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred.” ~Charles Wallace Collins, “The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,” pg. 45 (1912)https://books.google.com/books?id=0OkJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR1&dq=Charles+Wallace+Collins+14th+Amendment&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcwYmTkNLJAhVP3mMKHUn1AHgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

As we can see by the above, the Radicals wanted to REVERSE the system of government and apply it to everyone, not just the former slaves.

“The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; IS THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF THE PESTILENT HERESY OF STATE-RIGHTS, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain.” ~James G. Blaine, “Twenty Years In Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield,” pg. 30 [emphasis added]https://books.google.com/books?id=GeEyCQAAQBAJ&dq=Twenty+years+in+congress+Blaine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhlKuVk9LJAhVX-2MKHZZLCTMQ6AEIIjAB

In Blaine’s own words, they wished to “reverse” the sovereignty by making the sovereign people and states subordinate to the federal government, which is the “utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights,” and the very definition of TREASON. (See footnote #6 [treason defined] as well as footnote #3 & #11)

(5) – The following is section one of the insidious 14th Amendment. You can also find the further distinction of “the jurisdiction” and “its jurisdiction” from “their jurisdiction” in the 13th Amendment.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within ITS jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [emphasis added]

(6) – “Northern General Charles Francis Adams, President of the Massachusetts Historical Society, quoted from his address on the occasion of the Lee Centennial at Washington and Lee University:
“The technical argument—the logic of the proposition—seems plain, and, to my thought, unanswerable. The original sovereignty was indisputably in the States; in order to establish a nationality certain attributes of sovereignty were ceded by the States to a common central organization; all attributes not thus specifically conceded were reserved to the States, and no attributes of moment were to be construed as conceded by implication. There is no attribute of sovereignty so important as allegiance–citizenship. So far all is elementary. Now we come to the crux of the proposition. Not only was allegiance—the right to define and establish citizenship—not among the attributes specifically conceded by the several States to the central nationality, but on the contrary, it was explicitly reserved, the instrument declaring that ‘the citizens of each State should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.’ Ultimate allegiance was, therefore, due to the State which defined and created citizenship, and not to the central organization which accepted citizens whomever the States pronounced to be such.””
[emphasis added]
“The South was Right” by S. A. Steel (1914) pages 27 and 28http://www.archive.org/details/southwasrightbys00stee

(NOTE: The reason I quote Charles Francis Adams Jr, a Brigadier-General in the Union Army, is not necessarily the side he chose to defend, but also his family history, knowledge of original intent and (more importantly) his discernment of treason.

-Charles Francis Adams Jr. was the great grandson of John Adams and grandson of John Quincy Adams, both of which were U.S. presidents (2nd and 6th, respectively).

-Treason is defined in Article III, section 3, clause 1 as:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…”

“Levying war against THEM,” not it.

The treason clause of Nevada (to give the reader and idea of a state’s treason clause) is as follows, as provided in Article I, section 19:

“Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies or giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Levying war against IT. Treason against the United States is levying war against THEM. By simple deductive reasoning, even without authority to guide us, if treason is against a state, then paramount allegiance is unequivocally due to the states that defined and created citizenship, per the original order as set forth by the Founders.

(7) – “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.” ~Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution for the United States

(8) – “Another point to address is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is not an “Amendment,” it is a “Revision.” […] “The bottom line is that Congress was and is incompetent to make “Revisions” to the Constitution for the United States of America, that the 14th Amendment is absolutely unconstitutional and therefore “null and void” ab initio for no power of “Revision” exists in the Congress.” ~Utah Supreme Court Justice A.H. Ellett, “The Non-Ratification of the 14th Amendment,” pg. 127 http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14th_amendment_dyett.pdfv

(9) – The “federal republic of republics” references a part of international law known as the Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel. Vattel’s Law of Nations, which was very popular to the members of Congress according to writings by Benjamin Franklin, is one of the founding authorities often quoted by the courts. In Book 1, section 10 it reads:

“Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.”http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Moreover, William Rawle, a well respected and eminent Philadelphia lawyer, authored, “A View of the Constitution,” a textbook used at the United States West Point military academy in 1825. He wrote the following in Chapter 32, pg 295, regarding “OF THE PERMANENCE OF THE UNION”:

“Having thus endeavoured to delineate the general features of this particular form of government, we shall conclude with adverting to the principles of its cohesion, and to the provisions it contains for its own duration and extension.

“The subject cannot perhaps be better introduced than by presenting in its own words an emphatical clause in the Constitution.

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the legislature, or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence.”

(10) – “The fourteenth amendment CREATES and defines citizenship of the United States. It has long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. This question is now at rest.”~United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, (Case No. 14,459)(1873) [emphasis added]

“Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly speaking, there were no citizens of the United States, but only some ONE of them. Congress had the power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” but not the power to make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state.”~Sharon v. Hill 26 F 337, 343 (1885) [emphasis added]

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” ~Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 (1953)

“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pg. 591 (1979)

(11) – “We have held also that in adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, the people (9th Amendment) required the States (10th Amendment) to surrender a portion of the sovereignty that had been preserved to them by the ORIGINAL Constitution, so that Congress may authorize private suits against nonconsenting States pursuant to its § 5 enforcement power. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). By imposing explicit limits on the powers of the States and granting Congress the power to enforce them, the Amendment “fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.” Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 59. When Congress enacts appropriate legislation to enforce this Amendment, see City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), federal interests are paramount, and Congress may assert an authority over the States which would be otherwise UNAUTHORIZED by the Constitution. Fitzpatrick, supra, at 456.” ~Alden et al. v. Maine 527 U.S. 706 (1999) [emphasis added]

“We are thus enabled to see what was the Congressional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same force in the Republican Party which secured the adoption of the Amendment has also given us its ideal of the purpose and scope of that constitutional measure by the laws thereunder enacted. They meant to change the form of the American Commonwealth. The States were to exist only in name. Their legislatures and their courts were to be reduced to impotency. The citizens of the States were now to live directly under the surveillance of the Federal Government, looking to it for protection in his private affairs and fearing its avenging power should he transgress the least of its commandments.

(12) – “De Facto Government. One that maintains itself by display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporary, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.”

(13) – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” ~Declaration of Independence (1776)http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

“The fundamental political question is why do people obey a government. The answer is that they tend to enslave them- selves, to let themselves be governed by tyrants. Freedom from servitude comes not from violent action, but from the refusal to serve. Tyrants fall when the people withdraw their support.” ~Étienne de la Boétie

“[Terminating consent] becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness…Every citizen is responsible for every act of his government…There is only one sovereign remedy, namely, non-violent non-cooperation. Whether we advertise the fact or not, the moment we cease to support the government it dies a natural death.” ~Mahatma Gandhi

“You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.” ~Mahatma Gandhi

*IT’S TIME TO UTILIZE OUR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, REVOKE CONSENT (ALLEGIANCE) TO BE GOVERNED AND PUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BACK IN ITS ENUMERATED DISTRICT WITH A MUZZLE ON.

***WE WILL BE SHOWING YOU HOW TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION IN A FUTURE ARTICLE***